TexasCHLforum.com

I'm not trying to stir controversy, just was curious.

I remember a time when Republicans and Democrats worked together for the good of the people and the country. Sometime about twenty years ago, that idea of building a future together went away in favor of uncompromising demographics. I don't think that was progress we can be proud of. I'm Republican, but my wife is a Democrat, so I practice what I preach.

Common sense needs to become common again, and ideologues need to go the way of the dinosaurs.

I will repeat my simple argument in favor of my human rights recognized by the Founding Fathers. Why should the actions of a handful of people deprive 300 million people of ANY freedom previously enjoyed; why should the terrible deaths of tens, hundreds, or even thousands of our citizens cancel out the sacrifice of my father and other veterans who fought wars where hundreds of thousands were killed just to protect my rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War ... by_country" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am thankful that we have a few good men, lawyers like Charles who fight for us and the preservation and recovery of rights, but there need to be more, and I don't know how we are going to find them.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

switch wrote:OK, the law reads: (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. Not sure what 'incident to' means or applies to.
What if it was worded '... for any lawful purposes or incident to hunting.' Would that make any difference?

Yes, it would make all the difference in the world. "Incident to" means it must be an integral part of the activity.

Chas.

Now you have me curious. If you have a CHL why would the lawful purpose of self defense be disallowed? My firearm is an integral part of my self defense plan. I read your description on page 1, but wonder at how such narrow interpretations occur. If plain English is tortured to make it mean something that a common man would not expect, where do we end up? I know that is a hypothetical question, but if the definitions can change just by putting enough Republicans or Democrats in office then English or some facet of its use for law must be wrong.